Search Judgments

(Ancestral Property Partition and Limitation)

The Limitation Act, 1963 (Articles 109 & 110); The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Sections 6 & 8); The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937; The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 3) - This judgment addresses two appeals against a common trial court decision. The plaintiff (son) sought partition of ancestral property, challenging a 2002 settlement deed by his father (Kullan) to his sister (first defendant) and subsequent sale deeds. The defendants contended the properties were self-acquired by the father, and the suit was time-barred.

Property Character: The High Court held that Kullan acquired the properties under a 1977 partition deed, after his father Ponnusamy's death (prior to Hindu Succession Act).

(Specific Performance of Sale Agreement)

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 41 Rule 22 - The Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 10 - The Limitation Act, 1963, Article 54 - The Specific Relief Act, 1963 - This second appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 10.06.1990. The plaintiff contended that the defendant received full consideration (Rs. 23,500/-) and handed over property possession, but later refused to execute the sale deed. The defendant denied the agreement, claiming forgery and asserting the suit was time-barred.

(Criminal Revision - Attempt to Murder (S.307 IPC))

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307 (Attempt to Murder), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 294(b) (Obscene acts and songs).

This Criminal Revision Case challenged the judgments of the lower courts which convicted the petitioner (husband) under Section 307 IPC. 

The petitioner was found guilty of attacking his wife (PW1) with a knife, causing injuries to her head, shoulder, and breast, stemming from suspicion of fidelity. The trial court sentenced him to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine, which was upheld by the appellate court. 

The petitioner contended that the injuries were simple, warranting conviction only under Section 323 IPC, and that the prosecution failed to prove motive or the attack itself, suggesting the injury resulted from a fall. He also questioned the reliability of a minor witness (PW2).

 
The High Court considered the testimonies of the injured (PW1), her daughter (PW2), neighbours (PW3, PW4), and corroborating medical evidence (PW9) as sufficient proof.

(Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Conviction)

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1). The Court also considered non-compliance with Sections 52A and 50(4) of the Act.

Appellants (A1-A3) were initially sentenced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,20,000 each for possessing 101 kg ganja, and 5 years RI and a Rs. 50,000 fine each for conspiracy, with sentences to run concurrently.

(Conviction for Murder and Attempted Murder)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 149, 120B, 307) - Arms Act (Section 27) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 313) - Constitution of India (Article 136) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 134) - Appellants Adalat Yadav and Anirudh Yadav (father and son) challenged the High Court's confirmation of their life imprisonment for the murder of Ram Sharan Yadav and 10 years for attempting to murder Sunil Yadav (PW-5), along with sentences under the Arms Act. The motive was the deceased's testimony in an earlier murder case.

The Trial Court convicted, and the High Court upheld it, primarily relying on the sole testimony of the injured complainant (PW-5) after discarding other eyewitnesses due to inconsistencies.

Before the Supreme Court, appellants argued delay in FIR, discrepancies in the place of occurrence, conflict between medical and ocular evidence, non-examination of material witnesses, and the unreliability of a single witness.

(Cadre Reallocation and Medical Hardship)

This case involves the cadre reallocation of an employee from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand, governed by principles of state reorganization and DOPT guidelines on cadre allocation, especially concerning medical hardship.

The appellant, Rajendra Singh Bora, cleared a 1995 competitive exam (pre-Uttarakhand formation) and opted for a 'hill region' posting. His appointment was delayed due to a technicality, finally formalized in 2011 notionally from 1997. Subsequently, he sought reallocation to the 'hill cadre' (now Uttarakhand) based on his original option and his son's cognitive disability.

(Motor Accident Compensation for Amputee)

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 168 (Award of Claims Tribunal) - The case involves an appeal seeking enhanced compensation for a motor accident victim who suffered amputation of his right leg below the knee in 2007. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,73,211/-, which the High Court enhanced to Rs. 13,02,043/-.

(Property Dispute (Specific Endowment)

The Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Sections 3, 30) and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, particularly Section 2(19) (defining 'specific endowment') and Sections 108/109 (limitation). This appeal challenged the trial court's dismissal of a suit filed by Arulmighu Kallalagar Thirukovil seeking recovery of possession, mandatory injunction, and permanent injunction over land against the respondents.

The temple claimed the suit property was 'Inam land' (water pandal Maniyam) dedicated to it, for which it received a ryotwari patta in 1967 under the Abolition Act. It alleged the defendants unlawfully encroached the land.

(Liability for Electrocution from Unauthorized Fencing)

Electricity Act, 2003; Indian Penal Code - This judgment resolves conflicting judicial opinions regarding TANGEDCO's liability for deaths caused by unauthorized electric fencing erected by private parties. The petitioners sought enhanced compensation for the electrocution deaths of their parents from an illegal fence. The Court examined the principle of strict liability, noting its application when a dangerous thing, kept by a person, escapes from their custody or control and causes mischief (Rylands v. Fletcher).

(Allotment of Common Election Symbol)

This case concerns the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, specifically Para 10B(B) and its Explanations (i) and (ii).

A registered unrecognized political party challenged the rejection of its application for a common symbol for upcoming general elections, arguing procedural defects and no statutory embargo for a third attempt under Para 10B.

The Election Commission contended that the party had already availed the concession twice. As per Para 10B(B) Explanation (ii), eligibility for a subsequent (third) concession requires securing at least 1% of total votes polled in the State on the previous occasion, which the petitioner admittedly failed to achieve.